Attorney-General v Doolan[2015] QSC 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. HIS HONOUR: The applicant, Geoffrey Doolan, is presently being held in custody, having contravened the terms of a supervision order made under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (“the Act”).  The Act relevantly provides to the effect that when brought before the court on a contravention, a person subject to a supervision order must be detained in custody pending the final hearing, unless the person can show exceptional circumstances.  When he was apprehended after having committed the contravention, the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered that he be detained.  This is now an application by Mr Doolan for his release on the basis that exceptional circumstances can be shown.
2. In relation to the necessity to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, Boddice J in Harvey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland [2011] QCA 256, in a passage with which McMurdo P and White JA agreed, said:

“The word “exceptional” is an ordinary, familiar English adjective.  It “describes a circumstance which is such as to form an exception, which is out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special or uncommon”.  It need not be “unique, or unprecedented, or very rare”, but it cannot be a circumstance that is “regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered”.” (Citation omitted).

3. In the Attorney-General of the State of Queensland v Dugdale [2009] QSC 358, which was endorsed in Harvey’s case, it was held:

“Whether exceptional circumstances are shown to exist will depend on the facts and circumstances of a particular case.  A breach that is trivial or accidental may well present little difficulty for a prisoner to show “exceptional circumstances”.  However, exceptional circumstances require a conclusion that the associated risks from any release pending determination of the contravention proceedings, are not such as to justify continuing detention.” (Citation omitted). 

4. The circumstances of the contravention are set out in some detail in the material before me.  In short, the present applicant, Mr Doolan, was subjected to threats in the house of the relevant Townsville accommodation precinct in which he was living whilst under the supervision order.  The threats came from another occupant of the house, who had apparently been engaged in a threatening conversation with another person which had been overheard by the present applicant.  The other occupant then made some threats to the present applicant, which was such as to cause the applicant to fear for his own safety.  He fled the precinct and made his way to the Townville Strand, an area with which he was well familiar.  He was very shortly thereafter picked up by the police.  He did not in any way resist. He did not hide his location nor did he resist apprehension by the authorities. 
5. I do not in any way wish to minimise or trivialise the seriousness of the fact that the present applicant contravened the terms of his supervision order, but note the circumstances in which the contravention occurred.  These include circumstances of being under an immediate threat from a fellow occupant of the Townsville Precinct,  and also, the applicant’s own conduct after he had departed the precinct in offering no resistance whatsoever to his apprehension by the authorities.
6. As was made clear in the authorities to which I have just referred, it is relevant to consider the risk presented by the current applicant should he again be released under a supervision order.  In that regard, I have the benefit of an updated report by Dr Scott Harden, psychiatrist, who has previously given reports in respect of this applicant for the purposes of the dangerous prisoner applications.  In his current report, Dr Harden concluded under the heading: “Risk associated with his alleged contravention”:

“My previous assessments were that his unmodified future risk of sexual reoffence was high. 

I also noted previously that the critical risk issue in this man is alcohol abuse.  In my past assessments I had been most concerned about situations where he was intoxicated and in the presence of young people. 

While I note that he has left his accommodation without permission at night time and has headed into the Townsville Strand area (which he is familiar with) there is no suggestion that he attempted to obtain alcohol. 

I would have been much more concerned about a contravention associated with alcohol consumption or intoxication. 

I note that Mr Doolan made no attempt to evade detection or apprehension by the police. 

In my view this contravention probably does not significantly alter my previous opinion with regard to his risk and risk management. 

In my view the existing supervision order and arrangement should still result in reduction of risk as noted previously by ensuring his abstinence from alcohol.  If he were to be released on an interim basis, in my view the previous arrangements are sufficient to reduce his risk.”

7. The opinions expressed by Dr Harden, in my view, sufficiently address the concerns to which I need have regard in assessing the risks associated with release of the current applicant, even on an interim basis, pursuant to a supervision order.  I am satisfied that the terms of the last supervision order are sufficient to address those risks.  In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the present applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances such as to warrant his release on a supervision order pending final hearing of the contravention hearing. 
8. For reasons that I do not need to go into at the moment, the supervision order will not take effect until 16 July 2015, when the present applicant will be in a position to be able to be released under the terms of the supervision order into the Townsville Precinct premises.  Accordingly, there will be an interim supervision order in terms of the draft that I now initial and place with the papers.